|
StrangerThan -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/14/2011 1:42:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
He`s won about as many as he`s lost.
Cons aren`t so concerned with the law as they are in hearing that "Obama lost".
It`ll be up to the SCOTUS, sometime soon.
It`s interesting that the folks who don`t want their tax money going to paying for other people`s health care, are against this law.
It`s the people who use ERs and other medical services and don`t pay,that this law targets.
It`s to offset the money states give hospitals, who are required to give care whether or not the patient can pay.
Making the free-loaders pay is a con-mantra,after all.
A core conservative value,is personal responsibility. Right?
Can we have a con explain this apparent contradiction?
What contradiction would you like explained? Being opposed to a law that targets those who don't pay and personal responsibility? Is that it Owner?
So let's see, we have supposed people with no personal responsibility, and those who do. So to force the one's who don't into responsibility, we enact a law we say targets them that forces a mandate of buying on virtually every adult in America, even those who had responsibility in the first place. And we do it in a fashion where we ram it through out of fear we'll get our asses handed to us and won't be able to afterwards. And we do it in a way that changes the wording of the Constitution from essentially regulating to requiring.
Is that the contradiction you want explained?
|
|
|
|
